AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesAlexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada

Federal Court · Jan 9, 2026

CanadaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Federal Court disregarded the Applicant's AI-generated case citations after she admitted to using AI to draft her memorandum without disclosure. The Court subsequently granted the application for judicial review based on the administrative decision-maker's failure to consider relevant psychological evidence, rather than the AI-related conduct.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's memorandum contained references to jurisprudence that did not exist; the Respondent flagged the issue and the Court disregarded the unreliable case citations.
Why it matters now
Federal Court now routinely disregards unreliable citations—attack opponent's authorities as a threshold matter.

Why this matter is tracked

In a judicial review of a Veterans Affairs Canada decision, the self-represented Applicant submitted a memorandum containing fabricated case law. Upon inquiry by the Federal Court, the Applicant admitted to using artificial intelligence to draft her materials without disclosing its use, as required by the Federal Court Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings. The Court disregarded the unreliable citations and content generated by the AI. Ultimately, the Court granted the application for judicial review on separate administrative grounds, finding that the original decision-maker failed to consider psychological evidence regarding the medical necessity of the requested procedures. The Court used this instance as a cautionary example regarding the necessity of validating and disclosing AI-generated content.

Operational lesson

Federal Court now routinely disregards unreliable citations—attack opponent's authorities as a threshold matter.

Record details

CourtFederal Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 9, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe application for judicial review was granted on the basis that the administrative decision-maker failed to consider psychological evidence, independent of the AI-related procedural issue.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The Applicant confirmed AI use but the specific tool was not named.

Procedural posture

Judicial review of a Veterans Affairs Canada decision denying reimbursement for medical procedures.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant's memorandum contained references to jurisprudence that did not exist; the Respondent flagged the issue and the Court disregarded the unreliable case citations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada?
The Federal Court disregarded the Applicant's AI-generated case citations after she admitted to using AI to draft her memorandum without disclosure. The Court subsequently granted the application for judicial review based on the administrative decision-maker's failure to consider relevant psychological evidence, rather than the AI-related conduct.
Why does Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada matter for legal AI risk?
Federal Court now routinely disregards unreliable citations—attack opponent's authorities as a threshold matter.
What does the public record establish about Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada?
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Alexandra Philomena Brigid Roy v Attorney General of Canada summary?
The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Myriane Béland v. Procureur général du CanadaFederal Court · Jun 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAbraham Okogun v The Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMarie Pia Fazio v Canada Revenue AgencyFederal Court · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAmit Arora v Canadian National RailwayFederal Court · Apr 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsErin Gray v Attorney General of CanadaFederal Court · Mar 5, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDjybril Voukeng Djatsa v. Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations